*
Conference on the Implications of the East European Elections:
Ukraine and Belarus
The Heritage Foundation
Thank you for inviting me to participate in your important and timely session.
Both Ukraine and Belarus face important elections in the coming month. Both are societies burdened by the Soviet communist legacy of the past. Both were “Captive Nations” and both, albeit to varying degrees, are vulnerable to Russia’s political and economic influence, especially as all too many among the Russian political elite have not yet reconciled themselves to the loss of empire. Both now border on NATO and the EU. Both face serious challenges to democracy and Euro-Atlantic integration. There are many other similarities. There are also important distinctions.
Belarus is ruled by a dictator who controls the levers of power and increasingly all facets ofBelarusian society. Given the level of control and repression, there are few counterweights to Lukashenka’s rule. The parliament, the National Assembly lacks real powers and Members have little power to be independent of Lukashenka’s strong-arm tactics. Civil society, including NGOs and independent media, is under a tight lid. Fundamentally flawed elections have left that country lacking a legitimate president and legislature.
Ukraine, for all of the backsliding, scandals, and problems with respect to human rights, democracy and the rule of law, has institutions that act at least somewhat as a check on the powers-that-be, despite the ruling regime’s attempts to control and, in some instances, stifle genuine democratic development and civil society. Civil society is tolerated to a greater extent than in Belarus, and independent media, while under severe pressure, is more widespread. There are competing centers of power and many diverse economic, political and social interests in Ukraine.
In the case of Ukraine, despite the progress in many areas since independence, there have been significant problems with respect to implementation of OSCE human dimension commitments, including in the areas of media freedoms, freedom of association and assembly, corruption, the rule of law and elections. The largest faction in the Rada is that of democratic opposition and presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine. The pro-presidential parliamentary majority has disintegrated, with the defection earlier this month of the party led by Rada Speaker Lytvyn. Genuine political competition exists, and, of course, there is competition among the oligarchs.
In Belarus, there is only one oligarch. Although the Kuchma regime might be tempted, thus far, they have not been able to act with the same degree of impunity that Lukashenka exhibits.
International attention is rightly now focused on ensuring free, fair, open and transparent presidential elections on October 31 with a second round likely in late November. These elections are critically important to the future of Ukraine, yet we see on a daily basis an election campaign that calls into question Ukraine’s commitment to OSCE principles. Without exaggeration, Ukraine is facing a critical presidential election – a choice not only between Euro-Atlantic integration versus reintegration into the former Soviet Eurasian space, but a choice between further development toward a European-style democracy, such as in Poland or Hungary, versus the increasingly authoritarian system that prevails in Russia today.
Many analysts and organizations, including the Helsinki Commission, have chronicled the numerous election campaign violations taking place inUkraine. We continue to maintain our strong interest and concern. Along with Chairman Henry Hyde, I joined him in introducing H.Con.Res. 415, calling on the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process for the presidential campaign. We make clear the expectation that Ukrainian authorities should – consistent with their own laws and international agreements – ensure an election process that enables all of the candidates to compete on a level playing field. We urge the Ukrainian Government to guarantee freedom of association and assembly, ensure full transparency of the election process, free access for Ukrainian and international election observers, and unimpeded access by all candidates to the media on a non-discriminatory basis.
Unfortunately, the pre-election environment in Ukraine gives great cause for concern. Ukrainian voters clearly are not receiving balanced and objective information about all the candidates in the race, independent media providing Ukrainians with objective information about the campaign – including channel 5 – is being shut down in the regions, and journalists who don’t follow the infamous secret instructions from the presidential administration, or temnyky, are harassed and even fired. Ukraine’s state-owned television channels are blatantly anti-Yushchenko.
Given the stakes in these elections, we should not be surprised that the ruling regime has launched an all-out campaign against the free media and against the opposition, the most recent of numerous examples being the highly suspicious poisoning of Victor Yushchenko. To its credit, the Rada last week overwhelmingly approved a resolution creating a special commission to investigate this alleged assassination attempt. We will be eager to see if the investigation will get underway. Four years have passed since the killing of independent journalist Georgi Gongadze, and the case remains unresolved. As you know, Gongadze was bravely exposing high-level corruption in Ukraine.
The Rada has also created an ad-hoc committee to monitor the upcoming election. Prime Minister Yanukovych, the presidential candidate of the ruling regime, instead of welcoming this move, called the Rada move “disloyal”. This speaks volumes.
The independence exhibited by the Rada in Ukraine would be unthinkable in Belarus. There, serious and persistent violations have been committed in most human dimension areas, including freedom of speech, association and assembly, media freedoms, religious liberties, elections and the rule of law. Thanks to Lukashenka’s iron rule, Belarus has the worst human rights record in Europe today, although Russia under the increasingly authoritarian rule of President Putin appears to be catching up, and, perhaps, even emulating Mr. Lukashenka.
Regrettably, the Belarusian authorities have disregarded the four democratic benchmarks established by the OSCE in 2000 – ending repressions and the climate of fear, permitting a functioning independent media, ensuring transparency of the elections process, and strengthening the functions of parliament. Lukashenka has flaunted shamelessly his 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summit declaration commitments for a political dialogue, with OSCE participation which stressed the necessity of removing "all remaining obstacles in Belarus to this dialogue by respecting the principles of the rule of law and the freedom of the media.” Lukashenka has pointedly ignored this commitment and the situation with respect to the rule of law and media freedoms has only continued its steady deterioration.
At the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Bucharest in 2000, I offered language to continue to deny the seating of the illegitimate Lukashenka parliament. We won. I continued to fight this battle until 2003, when the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly abandoned this position and seated the Members of the National Assembly. Since that time, I’ve continued to be an outspoken critic of the dismal human rights record of the Lukashenka regime.
Parliamentary elections are scheduled in Belarus for October 17, and they now have an added dimension, with Lukashenka’s September 7 announcement of a referendum that would pave the way to extend his rule beyond 2006, when his ten-year tenure is due to expire, to potentially join the ranks of “presidents for life,” like President Niyazov in Turkmenistan and others in Central Asia. The fact that, according to the Belarusian electoral code, a referendum cannot contain any questions related to presidential elections will certainly not deter him. Interestingly, opinion polls suggest that most Belarusians are against extending Lukashenka’s rule, and the threshold for passage of the referendum is high, as at least 50 percent of all eligible voters – and not merely those casting ballots – have to vote “yes” for the referendum to pass. We will see how they manipulate that one.
Nevertheless, to say that the deck is stacked in favor of Lukashenka is an understatement. The Belarusian Government has almost total control over the electoral process and considerable experience in conducting elections that, to put it mildly, do not meet international democratic standards. For example, opposition parties have been allocated a mere two percent of seats on the district election commissions, and an appalling 0.2 percent of the 7,000 precinct commissions. One-third of the candidates proposed by Belarusian opposition parties were reportedly denied registration.
Ladies and gentlemen, to their credit, Belarus’ repressed and embattled opposition and NGOs have not yet given up. We need to continue to support these brave men and women and all those struggling for democracy and human rights in Belarus. I am the sponsor of the BelarusDemocracy Act, which is waiting for consideration by the full House. The BDA is intended to promote democracy, human rights and rule of law inBelarus, including assistance for democracy building activities such as support for NGOs, independent media, international exchanges and international broadcasting.
We want to stand firmly on the side of those who long for freedom. As President Bush noted at Madison Square Garden earlier this month [on September 2], “The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation’s founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.”
We are eager to have governments and parliaments in both countries with whom we can join forces to combat the scourges of our day, such as human trafficking, HIV/AIDS which has reportedly infected one percent of Ukraine’s population, or corruption and cooperation on movement towards common security and Euro-Atlantic integration. We know that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian women and children have been trafficked mostly to Europe and the Middle East over the course of the last decade. The problem is especially acute in Ukraine – one of the largest source countries in Europe. Ukraine is also a major transit country. Both Ukraine and Belarus have been designated in the most recent State Department report as Tier II countries (there are three tiers), meaning that these governments do not yet fully comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but is making significant efforts to do so.
As the lead author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and its reauthorization which became law in 2003, I am pleased that our government, the OSCE and other international organizations and NGOs are devoting resources to combat this modern day slavery, but much more remains to be done.
For both Ukraine and Belarus, the best guarantee for their survival as independent countries is the full establishment of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, including, very importantly, democratic elections. In short, the best guarantee is their implementation of commitments both nations freely undertook when they joined the OSCE. Standing in solidarity with the courageous pro-democracy in both countries and with the people of Belarusand Ukraine, we must continue to encourage compliance with these commitments.
END REMARKS

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this conference on Ukraine 's Transition to a Stable Democracy. Media freedom is an especially important topic with the upcoming presidential elections in Ukraine , in what will be a defining year with respect to Ukraine 's democratic transition. Given the stakes, we should not be surprised by the fact that the powers-that-be have launched an all-out campaign to pressure the media.
Freedom of expression - and its corollary, freedom of the media - is one of the most basic human rights. It is vital to the development of civil society. Numerous OSCE agreements include various commitments on freedom of the media. These are agreements that Ukraine has voluntarily and freely committed to abide by as one of the 55 participating States of the OSCE.
The Helsinki Commission, whose mandate is to monitor and encourage compliance by the OSCE States with their OSCE agreements, has also maintained a strong interest in freedom of media in general and recognizes its importance in democratic development. As many of you know, the Commission has also maintained a strong interest in Ukraine and has, over the last several decades, been steadfast in encouraging Ukraine's independence. We are eager to have as an ally a democratic country where human rights are respected and the rule of law prevails.
We continue to maintain our strong interest and concern, especially with the critically important October 31 presidential elections. I am the original cosponsor of a House resolution, H.Con.Res. 415, introduced by Rep. Henry Hyde, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, calling on the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process for the presidential election. (This resolution, which was introduced by Commission Co-Chairman Sen. Campbell, has recently passed the Senate and will soon be taken up by the House.) The resolution outlines measures Ukrainian authorities need to take - consistent with their own laws and international agreements - to ensure an election process that enables all of the candidates to compete on a level playing field. The resolution specifically identifies violations to free media and urges unimpeded access by all parties and candidates to print, radio, television, and Internet media on a non-discriminatory basis.
Unfortunately, the situation with respect to the media in Ukraine in the run-up to the elections is discouraging. The election - apparently because of the clear-cut choice between current Prime Minister Yanukovich, and leader of the Our Ukraine democratic bloc Victor Yuschenko - seems to have frightened those who are now in power. It seems the ruling regime has decided to interfere in media election coverage at an unprecedented scale, presumably with the expectation that the interference will ensure their victory at the polls.
The OSCE recently assessed the media situation in the election campaign. They noted that overall, media pluralism is present in Ukraine - different views are represented and politicians of all ranks are regularly criticized - and in general the legal framework is satisfactory. On the other hand, according to OSCE and many other observers, "the one view dominating the airwaves is that of the government", due to an ownership structure closely connected to, or influenced by the current government. It is also due to the infamous so-called "temniki" or "secret instructions" to media from the presidential administration about what or what not to cover and how to cover it. The institutional framework of frequency allocation and licensing also allows for favoritism in the electronic media.
In short, the electronic media is heavily dominated by government and oligarchs, and the media tilts heavily towards Yanukovich, while casting Yuschenko in a negative light. The media is under attack:
* Since the beginning of this year, Ukrainian authorities have harassed, closed and filed lawsuits against numerous electronic and print media.
* Radio Liberty , an important source of objective information, and other radio stations such as Radio Kontynent have been either partially or totally taken off the air. Months of promises to various U.S. officials that Radio Liberty would be put back on the air have come to naught.
* Print runs have been permanently or temporarily stopped for several newspapers. Just a few days ago, authorities in the Kharkiv region temporarily confiscated 42,000 copies of the newspaper Without Censorship. Other media face politically motivated law suits.
* Volia cable, the leading cable television operator in Ukraine , (which carries the only channel which reports objectively on the democratic opposition - Channel 5) is experiencing severe pressure from the Prosecutor-General's office. Almost all cable companies that carry Channel 5 received a variety of threats and tax inspections, and some reportedly had cables "accidentally" cut.
* Reporters face harassment and censorship daily for their objective reporting.
Ladies and Gentlemen, equal access to media must be provided during the remainder of the presidential campaign and will be key in determining whether or not the presidential elections will be judged as free and fair by the OSCE and the international community. The elections will be a watershed for the future direction of that country. Ukraine has tremendous potential. Ukrainian authorities need to radically improve the election environment, including the media environment, if there is to be hope for these elections to meet OSCE standards.
In just two days, on September 16, we will mark the fourth anniversary of the killing of independent journalist Georgi Gongadze, who was exposing high-level corruption in Ukraine. His murder has been subject to numerous international protests, including statements, intercessions, and queries, by me and other Helsinki Commission members. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a case of a massive cover-up by high-level officials.
This is the fifth time that your conference is being held. The first took place four years ago just two days after Gongadze's disappearance. It was at that first conference that representatives of the Helsinki Commission and State Department first called for the Ukrainian government to investigate his disappearance. Four years later, the case remains unresolved. Ukrainian President Kuchma and a number of high-ranking officials have been implicated in his disappearance and the circumstances leading to his murder. The Ukrainian authorities' handling, or more accurately mishandling of this case, has been characterized by obfuscation and stonewalling, destruction of evidence, and the persecution and even death, in one instance, of those who tried to tell the truth about the case.
Tragically for Ukraine, the handling of this case has made a mockery of the rule of law. Not surprisingly, lack of transparency illustrated by the Gongadze case has fueled the debilitating problem of widespread corruption reaching the highest levels in Ukraine. A credible and transparent investigation of this case by Ukrainian authorities is long overdue and the perpetrators - no matter who they may be - need to be brought to justice. I hope that well before the sixth of your conferences, this case is resolved, as well as the cases of at least 18 other journalists in Ukraine who, according to Western media watchdog organizations, have died because of their work.
These journalists, including Mr. Gongadze, were exposing the massive problem of corruption and crime in Ukraine. One important issue intimately linked with corruption and crime worldwide - a global scourge to which Ukraine is by no means immune - is the trafficking of women and children. Each year, an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 girls, boys, women and men, including tens of thousands of Ukrainians, are bought and sold like chattel across international borders, many of them for brutal exploitation in the commercial sex industry. The plight of these individuals has touched many hearts and has led to a global movement to eradicate this form of modern-day slavery known as trafficking in human beings.
In November 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which I authored, was enacted with broad, bi-partisan support. The Act provides a framework for combating trafficking through law enforcement, prevention programs, and assistance to those victimized. The Act mandated major changes in U.S. law, including severe penalties of up to life in prison for those who traffic in humans and treatment of the victims - mostly women and children - as victims of crime rather than criminals themselves. This past December, President Bush signed a reauthorization of the Act, which I also wrote, to expand and strengthen the U.S. response to this scourge.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian women and children have been trafficked mostly to Europe and the Middle East over the course of the last decade, making it one of the largest source countries in Europe . It is also a major transit country. Ukraine has been designated in the most recent State Department report as a Tier II country (there are three tiers), meaning that the Ukrainian Government does not yet fully comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but is making significant efforts to do so. I am pleased that our government, the OSCE and other international organizations and NGOs are devoting resources to combat this modern day slavery, but much more remains to be done. I encourage the Ukrainian Government to make further progress, and implement its Comprehensive Program to Combat Trafficking in Persons, better coordinate with law enforcement officials of destination countries, and fight government corruption.
By conducting free and fair elections, respecting media freedoms, including resolving the Gongadze case, and effectively tackling the scourge of trafficking, the Ukrainian authorities will go a long way in restoring the trust of the citizens of Ukraine and strengthening Ukraine's independence, democracy, sending a powerful signal of its readiness to join the Euro-Atlantic community of nations. I stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people as they strive to achieve these important goals.

speech

OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism: Introductory Remarks For Session I

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism Introductory Remarks, Session I
As prepared for delivery
Thank you, Madame Moderator.
Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, friends,
It is my great honor and privilege to address this distinguished body of individuals. Today, here in Berlin, once the epicenter of an obscene policy to eliminate European Jewry, we have gathered together to confront and, to the best of our abilities, vanquish a highly disturbing resurgence of anti-Semitism. I want to thank our German hosts for offering this historic opportunity.
We gather against the backdrop of a spike of anti-Semitic violence that has swept through much of the OSCE region, particularly in Western Europe. Unparalleled since the dark days of the Second World War, Jewish communities throughout Europe and North America again are facing violent attacks against synagogues, Jewish cultural sites, cemeteries and individuals. It is an ugly reality that won’t go away by ignoring or by wishing it away. It must be defeated. Even in the eastern portions of the OSCE region, anti-Semitic acts occur in places long devoid of a Jewish presence.
This increase in violence is a chilling reminder that our societies still harbor a dangerous collection of bigots and racists who hate Jews.
Because of this grim reality, we gather to enlighten and motivate with particular emphasis on what practical steps we must take not just to mitigate this centuries-old obsession, but to crush this pernicious form of hate.
At the recent UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, the representative of the Holy See said anti-Semitism is a “distinct form of intolerance with religious and racial characteristics” and is the “oldest and most continuous form of religious intolerance ever known.”
George Washington’s 1790 letter to Touro Synagogue stated clearly that America was to be a place of tolerance for all, and said America “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” One year later, France became the first European country to emancipate its Jewish population and offer equal citizenship.
More recently, during the horrors of World War II, Chairman-in-Office Passy’s Bulgaria chose not to abandon its Jewish citizens. In the OSCE context, the 1990 Copenhagen Concluding document represented the first time an international body spoke specifically to the crime of anti-Semitism.
We hope the results of this Conference will serve as a blueprint for serious and hopefully bold action. Our words here in Berlin, however, must be repeated at home, with frequency, passion and tenacity and matched – and even exceeded – by deeds.
If our fight is to succeed, we need government officials at all levels to denounce, without hesitation or delay, anti-Semitic acts wherever and whenever they occur. No exceptions. The purveyors of hate never take a holiday or grow weary, nor should we. Holocaust remembrance and tolerance education must dramatically expand, and we need to ensure that our respective laws punish those who hate and incite violence against Jews.
The 18th century British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke prophetically said “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”
When national leaders fail to denounce anti-Semitic violence and slurs, the void is not only demoralizing to the victims but silence actually enables the wrongdoing. Silence by elected officials in particular conveys approval – or at least acquiescence - and can contribute to a climate of fear and a sense of vulnerability.
For the last two years, President Bush and Members of Congress from both parties have spoken out repeatedly and forcefully. We have tried to do our “due diligence” to know the truth and to decipher trends. At one of our hearings in 2002, for example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center offered compelling evidence that showed that anti-Semitic incidents were increasing significantly in Western Europe, and the Anti-Defamation League reported that more than 1,500 anti-Semitic incidents occurred in the United States in both 2002 and 2003. We decided that more needed to be done. Last summer I, along with my friend and colleague Ben Cardin, sponsored a bipartisan congressional resolution denouncing anti-Semitism. The measure passed (412-0). When I return to Washington later this week, we will introduce another resolution to highlight what we are attempting to do here in Berlin. Furthermore, we partnered with Gert Weisskirchen and members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to address the unprecedented rise of anti-Semitic violence at our Annual Session in 2002. Together, our delegations have organized forums – in Berlin, Washington and Vienna – on anti-Semitism. In both 2002 and 2003, the OSCE PA unanimously approved resolutions condemning anti-Semitism.
So, clearly, our words this week are extremely important. I respectfully submit that they must be matched with deeds. Paper promises must be followed with concrete actions. To that end, there is no excuse for not putting in place an aggressive, sustainable monitoring program.
Last year’s Maastricht Ministerial Council decision and last week’s Permanent Council decision committed all participating States to collect and keep records on reliable information and statistics on hate crimes, including anti-Semitism. According to a report on “Official Indifference” written by Human Rights First, of fourteen OSCE countries reviewed, nine had no systematic monitoring. A surgeon can’t remove a cancer or prescribe a course of treatment, without documenting the nature, scope, and extent of the disease. We must find out what’s going on!
For its part, the United States has been collecting hate crime information for almost 15 years. Many of the 50 states in the U.S. have enacted their own laws addressing hate crimes. Congress passed the federal Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1990, which requires the Attorney General to collect data each year about crimes that “manifest evidence of prejudice.” The most recent report available, the 2002 Hate Crimes Statistics Report, documented that religious bias motivated 19.1% of all hate crime incidents in the U.S. Of this total, a whopping 65.3% were anti-Semitic in nature.
One positive by-product of reporting is the impact it has on police. When solid reporting is coupled with police training fewer acts of anti-Semitic violence are likely to occur. The public sharing of this information at home and with the OSCE enhances accountability and allows interested communities and NGOs to craft and implement strategies. I therefore urge each of us to enhance our monitoring mechanisms and to promptly forward these findings to ODIHR.
A top to bottom review of laws, the enforcement of existing laws, and the enactment of new laws will help enormously. When France experienced a particularly high rate of anti-Semitic attacks in 2002, the French enacted a new statute. Mr. Pierre Lellouche, with us here today, was the champion behind these vital reforms. It is hoped that in each of our countries penalties that are commensurate with crimes motivated by anti-Semitic bias will have a chilling effect on those contemplating acts of hate, and surety of punishment for those who do.
Finally, if we are to protect our children from the dark evil of anti-Semitism, we must reeducate ourselves and systematically educate our children. While that starts in our homes, the classroom must be the incubator of tolerance. It seems to me that only the most hardened racist can remain unmoved by Holocaust education and remembrance. Only the most crass, evil, and prejudiced among us can study the horrors of the Holocaust and not cry out: Never again!
I urge you to consider making your nation a member of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research. Of the 16 current Task Force members, fourteen are OSCE participating States. Open to all countries willing to meet certain criteria, applicant countries must commit to open all public and private archives, establish some form of Holocaust remembrance, usually a national day of remembrance, and create or improve Holocaust education curricula.
In 1991, my home state of New Jersey established the Commission on Holocaust Education to promote Holocaust and genocide education standards throughout my state. The Commission is unique, and perhaps a model for others, as it regularly surveys the status of Holocaust education and the design of curricula to ensure that all schools are teaching about the Holocaust and genocide.
The Commission has developed more than 2,000 pages of material to aid New Jersey educators in teaching children about this painful, but important, topic. The New Jersey Commission is an innovative model for other OSCE participating States and local governments to emulate.
The Anti-Defamation League’s “A World of Difference” Institute has delivered programs to more than 450,000 American teachers about the Holocaust and intolerance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, partners with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Anti-Defamation League teach new FBI trainees about law enforcement’s role in the 1930s and 40s in abetting the Holocaust. Conducted at the Holocaust Museum, these sessions leave an indelible impression and lead to greater sensitivity and understanding.
Abraham Lincoln once said concerning slavery: “To sin by silence when they should protest, makes cowards of men.” Silence my friends is not an option. Nor is inaction.
Thank you.

speech

OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism: Intervention for Session 1

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism Intervention: Session 1
As prepared for delivery
Having just come from Auschwitz, I understand the importance of this Conference and the opportunity today that I have to speak about the urgency of ensuring proper responses by national leaders and government officials to anti-Semitism. Seeing the remains of that factory of intolerance, hate and death, I believe we cannot be reminded enough of the real consequences of not protecting universal human rights in the OSCE region. We must tirelessly work to build understanding between different communities to prevent future acts of prejudice and injustice.
I believe the first responsibility in this regard rests with governments and officials, as they can greatly influence the domestic climate for tolerance and respect. This can occur through a variety of ways, foremost when elected and governmental leaders visibly speak out against acts of intolerance. Leaders must make it clear that anti-Semitism is a threat to democracy.
Elected leaders like myself are naturally attuned to the will of their constituents. We like to get re-elected. Yet there is a danger of being too differential to populist concerns, what can, in worst-case scenarios, lead to harassment, intimidation and even physical violence. We must therefore provide leadership on issues like anti-Semitism and intolerance and clearly state our beliefs that these sentiments are unacceptable. Collectively, we must raise our expectations for our leaders to be involved. It is a risk worth taking. If we lead with resolve, we can impact the overall health of our societies. In short, we must act courageously and speak out boldly.
I am reminded of the actions of Turkish leaders after the horrible Istanbul bombings last November. Not only did Prime Minister Erdogan publicly denounce the two synagogue bombings, but he also met with Jewish leaders, reportedly a first in the history of the Republic. Seeing pictures from the funeral on that rain-drenched day, the caskets were draped with the Turkish flag, an honor normally reserved for soldiers or civilians who paid the ultimate price for their country. The message was unmistakable: despite being a predominantly Muslim country, Turkish leaders made clear this was not an attack on Jews, but rather an attack on Turks who happened to be Jewish, who were victimized because of their religion. Turkey has set an example for us all, and with its bold moves for EU accession and continued to progress toward the improving the treatment of its religious and ethnic minorities, it is working to create government policies that promote tolerance and non-discrimination. I salute the Turkish Government for unequivocally condemning the hateful acts perpetrated against the Jewish community in that country.
National and local community leaders clearly have a role to play in speaking out. In the United States, after 9/11, President Bush visited a mosque in Washington, DC, and made clear that those evil acts did not represent Islam. Locally, I similarly met with Muslim leaders in my district in Baltimore, Maryland, after September 11th to show my support for their community.
In addition to speaking out against incidents when they occur, we must all ensure our domestic laws can properly deal with these criminal acts. We must ensure law enforcement is doing everything possible to prosecute the perpetrators of these hateful acts. In the OSCE context, many participating States responded to the spike of anti-Semitic violence, recognizing the unacceptability of the trend. The French National Assembly passed laws enhancing penalties for crimes motivated by anti-Semitism. The new laws doubled prison sentences for crimes of a “racist, anti-Semitic, or xenophobic” nature, as well as created special training programs for judges. France backed up its statements with funding, which demonstrates its real commitment, and budgeted serious amounts to improve the security of Jewish community establishments.
Other countries are acting as well. The German Bundestag recently issued a resolution denouncing anti-Semitic violence, and in Canada a similar resolution has been introduced. The U.S. Congress has recently funded an ethics center at the U.S. Naval Academy, which is in the district I represent. In another U.S. military initiative, a new generation of military leaders will now visit concentration camps, like Auschwitz, and be inspired to never again allow injustices of this magnitude to occur.
Yet even under the most favourable conditions, instances of bigotry can manifest themselves. The question is how can we measure levels of intolerance in our societies? Opinion polls and community surveys can discern inclinations and prejudices, but when dislike transforms into actions of hate and crosses the threshold of criminal acts, we must have mechanisms in place to track these occurrences.
I am proud to say that the United States has been monitoring hate crimes and compiling the information into a yearly report since 1990. This enables policymakers to track trends and then develop strategies to address these findings. Without a monitoring mechanism, how can officials intelligently move forward? Without the capability to recognize when communities are being targeted, how can governments provide a credible level of protection for likely victims?
I am proud to note that in the OSCE region efforts are underway to increase the tracking of manifestations of anti-Semitism and intolerance in all participating States, and to forward these statistics to ODIHR for compilation and publication. The OSCE Permanent Council just last week came to a consensus decision that all participating States will gather information on crimes related to anti-Semitism or intolerance. I urge all countries to genuinely fulfil this commitment, while also working with NGOs, so that the most complete picture can be obtained.
Let us not forget that the burden to monitor and track incidents of anti-Semitism and intolerance rests first with participating States. I therefore trust ODIHR will receive robust support from all OSCE countries, so it can fully execute this task while not sacrificing its good programming in other areas. We should also support collectively strengthening OSCE’s capacity to gather information from each of our participating States, share best practices, and offer help to States in developing effective strategies to fight anti-Semitism. Participating States should strive to implement these commitments as soon as possible, so we can begin to understand the nature of the problem and craft practical solutions.
However, collecting data is only a starting point, creating the basis for future action. We must not confuse our efforts here today to be the victory against anti-Semitism. Today’s meeting is historic and a tremendous statement of our resolve to fight this evil, but we will be judged by how we follow up on these discussions and debates. Each of our States must be committed to develop an action strategy to combat anti-Semitism. That strategy should be open to review with regular oversight by parliament. The NGO community must be a resource used by each State. The OSCE’s capacity to assist States in this effort needs to be focused and strengthened.
In closing, Mr. Moderator, the first way to promote tolerance is to fight intolerance. By speaking-out forcefully when instances of bigotry and hate arise at home, we can make certain that acts of intolerance will not be entertained or sanctioned. Remembering the horrors of Auschwitz and other grotesque examples of hatred, I genuinely hope States will leave today fully committed to combat intolerance and discrimination.
Thank you.

speech

OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism: The Role of Government in Combating anti-Semitism in the Media a

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism The Role of Government in Combating anti-Semitism in the Media
As prepared for delivery
As a Vice President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I know firsthand that the OSCE plays a unique leadership role in promoting tolerance and respect towards Jews, as it was the first international organization to publicly condemn anti-Semitism. This year’s Conference further reflects the OSCE’s commitment to confronting and combating the seemingly never-ending cycle of hate, violence, and ignorance toward Jews throughout the world.
The same ignorance that is passed along from generation to generation in families is running rampant in everyday media today. Whether appearing in a government owned or regulated market, or privately funded media, anti-Semitic comments, cartoons, and articles continue to flourish despite mainstream society’s rejection of anti-Semitism.
In embarking on the critical task of curbing anti-Semitism, we must establish realistic and specific goals with real timetables and tools of measurement. Most importantly, we must also be frank with ourselves.
Jews and other minorities in Europe and in the Middle East are facing multiple threats coming from various flanks. Old attitudes toward Jews last seen during the Holocaust-era are meshing with a much broader coalition of hate made up of a new breed of persons.
Realistically, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not on the immediate horizon. Likewise, there are no current plans for the U.S. and allied forces to disengage from Iraq, and pressure will rightly continue to mount on Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, to crack down on terrorism and radicalism within their own borders.
If we are to accept that these international predicaments serve as systemic catalysts to increased anti-Semitism, then our solutions should be critical of those governments and societies which allow such hate mongers to manifest themselves through the media and mainstream society.
Governments can legislate all they want. We can meet as much as we want. But until it becomes unfashionable in mainstream and specific societies to preach anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudicial discrimination, we will find ourselves in a never-ending cycle of intolerance. As citizens of the world we have come to this place to teach and learn. The challenges are obvious and many. And we have a responsibility to meet them all.
I heard here the word “hate” very often. I did not hear the word “love” once.
I am not naive enough to believe that we can combat anti-Semitism with love alone. But, talking about and practicing loving our fellow human beings may help us to understand each other.

Thank you, Madame Moderator.
Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, friends, It is my great honor and privilege to address this distinguished body of individuals. Today, here in Berlin, once the epicenter of an obscene policy to eliminate European Jewry, we have gathered together to confront and, to the best of our abilities, vanquish a highly disturbing resurgence of anti-Semitism. I want to thank our German hosts for offering this historic opportunity.
We gather against the backdrop of a spike of anti-Semitic violence that has swept through much of the OSCE region, particularly in Western Europe. Unparalleled since the dark days of the Second World War, Jewish communities throughout Europe and North America again are facing violent attacks against synagogues, Jewish cultural sites, cemeteries and individuals. It is an ugly reality that won’t go away by ignoring or by wishing it away. It must be defeated. Even in the eastern portions of the OSCE region, anti-Semitic acts occur in places long devoid of a Jewish presence.
This increase in violence is a chilling reminder that our societies still harbor a dangerous collection of bigots and racists who hate Jews. Because of this grim reality, we gather to enlighten and motivate with particular emphasis on what practical steps we must take not just to mitigate this centuries-old obsession, but to crush this pernicious form of hate.
At the recent UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, the representative of the Holy See said anti-Semitism is a “distinct form of intolerance with religious and racial characteristics” and is the “oldest and most continuous form of religious intolerance ever known.”
George Washington’s 1790 letter to Touro Synagogue stated clearly that America was to be a place of tolerance for all, and said America “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” One year later, France became the first European country to emancipate its Jewish population and offer equal citizenship.
More recently, during the horrors of World War II, Chairman-in-Office Passy’s Bulgaria chose not to abandon its Jewish citizens. In the OSCE context, the 1990 Copenhagen Concluding document represented the first time an international body spoke specifically to the crime of anti-Semitism.
We hope the results of this Conference will serve as a blueprint for serious and hopefully bold action. Our words here in Berlin, however, must be repeated at home, with frequency, passion and tenacity and matched – and even exceeded – by deeds.
If our fight is to succeed, we need government officials at all levels to denounce, without hesitation or delay, anti-Semitic acts wherever and whenever they occur. No exceptions. The purveyors of hate never take a holiday or grow weary, nor should we. Holocaust remembrance and tolerance education must dramatically expand, and we need to ensure that our respective laws punish those who hate and incite violence against Jews.
The 18th century British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke prophetically said “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” When national leaders fail to denounce anti-Semitic violence and slurs, the void is not only demoralizing to the victims but silence actually enables the wrongdoing. Silence by elected officials in particular conveys approval – or at least acquiescence – and can contribute to aclimate of fear and a sense of vulnerability.
For the last two years, President Bush and Members of Congress from both parties have spoken out repeatedly and forcefully. We have tried to do our “due diligence” to know the truth and to decipher trends. At one of our hearings in 2002, for example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center offered compelling evidence that showed that anti-Semitic incidents were increasing significantly in Western Europe, and the Anti-Defamation League reported that more than 1,500 anti-Semitic incidents occurred in the United States in both 2002 and 2003. We decided that more needed to be done. Last summer I, along with my friend and colleague Ben Cardin, sponsored a bipartisan congressional resolution denouncing anti-Semitism. The measure passed (412-0). When I return to Washington later this week, we will introduce another resolution to highlight what we are attempting to do here in Berlin. Furthermore, we partnered with Gert Weisskirchen and members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to address the unprecedented rise of anti-Semitic violence at our Annual Session in 2002. Together, our delegations have organized forums – in Berlin, Washington and Vienna – on anti-Semitism. In both 2002 and 2003, the OSCE PA unanimously approved resolutions condemning anti-Semitism.
So, clearly, our words this week are extremely important. I respectfully submit that they must be matched with deeds. Paper promises must be followed with concrete actions. To that end, there is no excuse for not putting in place an aggressive, sustainable monitoring program.
Last year’s Maastricht Ministerial Council decision and last week’s Permanent Council decision committed all participating States to collect and keep records on reliable information and statistics on hate crimes, including anti-Semitism. According to a report on “Official Indifference” written by Human Rights First, of fourteen OSCE countries reviewed, nine had no systematic monitoring. A surgeon can’t remove a cancer or prescribe a course of treatment,without documenting the nature, scope, and extent of the disease. We must find out what’s going on!
For its part, the United States has been collecting hate crime information for almost 15 years. Many of the 50 states in the U.S. have enacted their own laws addressing hate crimes.
Congress passed the federal Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1990, which requires the Attorney General to collect data each year about crimes that “manifest evidence of prejudice.” The most recent report available, the 2002 Hate Crimes Statistics Report, documented that religious bias motivated 19.1% of all hate crime incidents in the U.S. Of this total, a whopping 65.3% were anti-Semitic in nature.
One positive by-product of reporting is the impact it has on police. When solid reporting is coupled with police training fewer acts of anti-Semitic violence are likely to occur. The public sharing of this information at home and with the OSCE enhances accountability and allows interested communities and NGOs to craft and implement strategies. I therefore urge each of us to enhance our monitoring mechanisms and to promptly forward these findings to ODIHR.
A top to bottom review of laws, the enforcement of existing laws, and the enactment of new laws will help enormously. When France experienced a particularly high rate of anti-Semitic attacks in 2002, the French enacted a new statute. Mr. Pierre Lellouche, with us here today, was the champion behind these vital reforms. It is hoped that in each of our countries penalties that are commensurate with crimes motivated by anti-Semitic bias will have a chilling effect on those contemplating acts of hate, and surety of punishment for those who do.
Finally, if we are to protect our children from the dark evil of anti-Semitism, we must reeducate ourselves and systematically educate our children. While that starts in our homes, the classroom must be the incubator of tolerance. It seems to me that only the most hardened racist can remain unmoved by Holocaust education and remembrance. Only the most crass, evil, and prejudiced among us can study the horrors of the Holocaust and not cry out: Never again!
I urge you to consider making your nation a member of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research. Of the 16 current Task Force members, fourteen are OSCE participating States. Open to all countries willing to meet certain criteria, applicant countries must commit to open all public and private archives, establish some form of Holocaust remembrance, usually a national day of remembrance, and create or improve Holocaust education curricula.
In 1991, my home state of New Jersey established the Commission on Holocaust Education to promote Holocaust and genocide education standards throughout my state. The Commission is unique, and perhaps a model for others, as it regularly surveys the status of Holocaust education and the design of curricula to ensure that all schools are teaching about the Holocaust and genocide.
The Commission has developed more than 2,000 pages of material to aid New Jersey educators in teaching children about this painful, but important, topic. The New Jersey Commission is an innovative model for other OSCE participating States and local governments to emulate.
The Anti-Defamation League’s “A World of Difference” Institute has delivered programs to more than 450,000 American teachers about the Holocaust and intolerance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, partners with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Anti-Defamation League teach new FBI trainees about law enforcement’s role in the 1930s and 40s in abetting the Holocaust. Conducted at the Holocaust Museum, these sessions leave anindelible impression and lead to greater sensitivity and understanding.
Abraham Lincoln once said concerning slavery: “To sin by silence when they should protest, makes cowards of men.” Silence, my friends, is not an option. Nor is inaction.
Thank you.

speech

Statement at the OSCE's Berlin Anti-Semitism Conference

Thursday, April 01, 2004

Having just come from Auschwitz, I understand the importance of this Conference and the opportunity today that I have to speak about the urgency of ensuring proper responses by national leaders and government officials to anti-Semitism.
Seeing the remains of that factory of intolerance, hate and death, I believe we cannot be reminded enough of the real consequences of not protecting universal human rights in the OSCE region.
We must tirelessly work to build understanding between different communities to prevent future acts of prejudice and injustice. I believe the first responsibility in this regard rests with governments and officials, as they can greatly influence the domestic climate for tolerance and respect.
This can occur through a variety of ways, foremost when elected and governmental leaders visibly speak out against acts of intolerance. Leaders must make it clear that anti-Semitism is a threat to democracy. Elected leaders like myself are naturally attuned to the will of their constituents. We like to get re-elected. Yet there is a danger of being too differential to populist concerns, what can, in worst-case scenarios, lead to harassment, intimidation and even physical violence. We must therefore provide leadership on issues like anti-Semitism and intolerance and clearly state our beliefs that these sentiments are unacceptable.
Collectively, we must raise our expectations for our leaders to be involved. It is a risk worth taking. If we lead with resolve, we can impact the overall health of our societies. In short, we must act courageously and speak out boldly.
I am reminded of the actions of Turkish leaders after the horrible Istanbul bombings last November. Not only did Prime Minister Erdogan publicly denounce the two synagogue bombings, but he also met with Jewish leaders, reportedly a first in the history of the Republic. Seeing pictures from the funeral on that rain-drenched day, the caskets were draped with the Turkish flag, an honor normally reserved for soldiers or civilians who paid the ultimate price for their country. The message was unmistakable: despite being a predominantly Muslim country, Turkish leaders made clear this was not an attack on Jews, but rather an attack on Turks who happened to be Jewish, who were victimized because of their religion. Turkey has set an example for us all, and with its bold moves for EU accession and continued to progress toward the improving the treatment of its religious and ethnic minorities, it is working to create government policies that promote tolerance and non-discrimination. I salute the Turkish Government for unequivocally condemning the hateful acts perpetrated against the Jewish community in that country.
National and local community leaders clearly have a role to play in speaking out. In the United States, after 9/11, President Bush visited a mosque in Washington, DC, and made clear that those evil acts did not represent Islam. Locally, I similarly met with Muslim leaders in my district in Baltimore, Maryland, after September 11th to show my support for their community.
In addition to speaking out against incidents when they occur, we must all ensure our domestic laws can properly deal with these criminal acts. We must ensure law enforcement is doing everything possible to prosecute the perpetrators of these hateful acts.
In the OSCE context, many participating States responded to the spike of anti-Semitic violence, recognizing the unacceptability of the trend. The French National Assembly passed laws enhancing penalties for crimes motivated by anti-Semitism. The new laws doubled prison sentences for crimes of a “racist, anti-Semitic, or xenophobic” nature, as well as created special training programs for judges. France backed up its statements with funding, which demonstrates its real commitment, and budgeted serious amounts to improve the security of Jewish community establishments.
Other countries are acting as well. The German Bundestag recently issued a resolution denouncing anti-Semitic violence, and in Canada a similar resolution has been introduced. The U.S. Congress has recently funded an ethics center at the U.S. Naval Academy, which is in the district I represent. In another U.S. military initiative, a new generation of military leaders will now visit concentration camps, like Auschwitz, and be inspired to never again allow injustices of this magnitude to occur.
Yet even under the most favourable conditions, instances of bigotry can manifest themselves. The question is how can we measure levels of intolerance in our societies? Opinion polls and community surveys can discern inclinations and prejudices, but when dislike transforms into actions of hate and crosses the threshold of criminal acts, we must have mechanisms in place to track these occurrences.
I am proud to say that the United States has been monitoring hate crimes and compiling the information into a yearly report since 1990. This enables policymakers to track trends and then develop strategies to address these findings. Without a monitoring mechanism, how can officials intelligently move forward? Without the capability to recognize when communities are being targeted, how can governments provide a credible level of protection for likely victims?
I am proud to note that in the OSCE region efforts are underway to increase the tracking of manifestations of anti-Semitism and intolerance in all participating States, and to forward these statistics to ODIHR for compilation and publication. The OSCE Permanent Council just last week came to a consensus decision that all participating States will gather information on crimes related to anti-Semitism or intolerance. I urge all countries to genuinely fulfil this commitment, while also working with NGOs, so that the most complete picture can be obtained.
Let us not forget that the burden to monitor and track incidents of anti-Semitism and intolerance rests first with participating States. I therefore trust ODIHR will receive robust support from all OSCE countries, so it can fully execute this task while not sacrificing its good programming in other areas. We should also support collectively strengthening OSCE’s capacity to gather information from each of our participating States, share best practices, and offer help to States in developing effective strategies to fight anti-Semitism. Participating States should strive to implement these commitments as soon as possible, so we can begin to understand the nature of the problem and craft practical solutions.
However, collecting data is only a starting point, creating the basis for future action. We must not confuse our efforts here today to be the victory against anti-Semitism. Today’s meeting is historic and a tremendous statement of our resolve to fight this evil, but we will be judged by how we follow up on these discussions and debates.
Each of our States must be committed to develop an action strategy to combat anti-Semitism. That strategy should be open to review with regular oversight by parliament. The NGO community must be a resource used by each State. The OSCE’s capacity to assist States in this effort needs to be focused and strengthened.
In closing, Mr. Moderator, the first way to promote tolerance is to fight intolerance. By speaking-out forcefully when instances of bigotry and hate arise at home, we can make certain that acts of intolerance will not be entertained or sanctioned. Remembering the horrors of Auschwitz and other grotesque examples of hatred, I genuinely hope States will leave today fully committed to combat intolerance and discrimination.
Thank you.

speech

Statement at the OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism

Thursday, April 01, 2004

As a Vice President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I know firsthand that the OSCE plays a unique leadership role in promoting tolerance and respect towards Jews, as it was the first international organization to publicly condemn anti-Semitism. This year’s Conference further reflects the OSCE’s commitment to confronting and combating the seemingly never-ending cycle of hate, violence, and ignorance toward Jews throughout the world.
The same ignorance that is passed along from generation to generation in families is running rampant in everyday media today. Whether appearing in a government owned or regulated market, or privately funded media, anti-Semitic comments, cartoons, and articles continue to flourish despite mainstream society’s rejection of anti-Semitism.
In embarking on the critical task of curbing anti-Semitism, we must establish realistic and specific goals with real timetables and tools of measurement. Most importantly, we must also be frank with ourselves.
Jews and other minorities in Europe and in the Middle East are facing multiple threats coming from various flanks. Old attitudes toward Jews last seen during the Holocaust-era are meshing with a much broader coalition of hate made up of a new breed of persons.
Realistically, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not on the immediate horizon.
Likewise, there are no current plans for the U.S. and allied forces to disengage from Iraq, and pressure will rightly continue to mount on Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, to crack down on terrorism and radicalism within their own borders.
If we are to accept that these international predicaments serve as systemic catalysts to increased anti-Semitism, then our solutions should be critical of those governments and societies which allow such hate mongers to manifest themselves through the media and mainstream society.
Governments can legislate all they want. We can meet as much as we want. But until it becomes unfashionable in mainstream and specific societies to preach anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudicial discrimination, we will find ourselves in a never-ending cycle of intolerance.
As citizens of the world we have come to this place to teach and learn. The challenges are obvious and many. And we have a responsibility to meet them all.
I heard here the word “hate” very often. I did not hear the word “love” once.
I am not naive enough to believe that we can combat anti-Semitism with love alone. But, talking about and practicing loving our fellow human beings may help us to understand each other.